两套TPS之间VMAT计划优化质量评价研究

目的 探讨两套商用TPS实施VMAT优化的性能特点。方法 随机选取本院宫颈癌和前列腺癌患者各10例,分别利用瓦里安Eclipse和飞利浦Pinnacle TPS设计VMAT计划(宫颈癌2Arc、3Arc,前列腺癌1Arc、2Arc),采用瓦里安Clinac iX加速器配备RapidArc技术实施照射。从剂量分布、实施效率、治疗照射参数等方面评价治疗计划质量的差异。对组间比较行配对t检验。

Evaluation of plan quality between two treatment planning systems for volumetric modulated arc therapy

Objective To investigate the plan quality between two treatment planning systems (TPSs) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods VMAT plans based on Varian Eclipse and Philips Pinnacle TPS were designed for 10 cervical cancer patients (2, 3 Arcs) and 10 prostate cancer patients ( 1, 2 Arcs) . The delivery system of VMAT was Varian ClinaciX machine, and RapidArc was used. The treatment plan quality between the two TPSs was evaluated based on dose distribution, delivery efficiency, and parameter settings. The differences between the two TPSs were compared using paired t-test. Results For cervical cancer patients, the 2-Arc VMAT plans based on the Pinnacle was slightly better than those based on the Eclipse in terms of the conformal index ( CI) of planning target volume ( PTV) , rectum V30 and V40 , and bladder V30 and V40 , and the homogeneity index ( HI) of PTV and PTV1 as well as CI of PTV1 in the Eclips were slightly better than those in the Pinnacle( P<005) Pinnacle were slightly worse than those in the Eclipse ( P>005) . The number of monitor units with 2-Arcs and 3-Arcs plans of the Eclipse was significantly smaller than those in the Pinnacle (P<005). For prostate cancer patients, The 1-arc VMAT plans of the Pinnacle TPS were slightly superior to those of the Eclipse TPS in terms of the HI of PTV, rectumV30 and V40 , and bladderV30 and V40 , but the former was slight inferior to the latter in terms of the CI of PTV (P<005). The number of monitor units of 1-arc and 2-Arcs plans showed no significant difference between the two TPSs (P>005). Conclusions For patients with cervical cancer and prostate cancer, the VMAT plans based on Varian Eclipse and Philips Pinnacle TPS can achieve a clinically acceptable dose distribution and show a little difference in the treatment plan quality. However, we will still need more cases to further study and determine the performance characteristics of the commercial TPSs for optimizing VMAT.